G.R. No.

215614, March 27, 2019

CARMELITA V. DIZON, PETITIONER, v. JOSE LUIS K. MATTI, JR., RESPONDENT.

Facts: Zenaida Acleto, a real estate agent, together with Mrs. Basilica C. Estaris, offered
respondent Matti, Jr. a townhouse for sale subject property that belonged to petitioner Dizon.

Respondent Matti, Jr. went to the RD to have the Owner's Duplicate copy authenticated by the
said office, registered in petitioner Dizon's name. Thereafter, respondent Matti, Jr. was told
verbally that said title is fake. A certificate was then issued by the RD attesting that said title in
respondent Matti, Jr.'s possession is fake.

In order to protect his rights and to avoid any fraudulent transfer of the said property to an
innocent third party, respondent Matti, Jr. caused the annotation of the Affidavit of Adverse
Claim on TCT No. T-58674 before the [RD].

A Complaint6 for Specific Performance filed by respondent Matti, Jr. against petitioner Dizon
asking that petitioner Dizon be ordered to deliver the Owner's Duplicate certificate of TCT to him
or if petitioner Dizon refuses to do so, that the RD be ordered to cancel TCT and issue a new
TCT in respondent Matti, Jr.'s favor.

Petitioner Dizon also claimed that she did not execute nor signed the Deed of Absolute Sale
presented by respondent Matti, Jr. nor did she participate in the negotiation, preparation and
execution of the said Deed of Absolute Sale.

The RTC rendered its herein assailed Decision, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit, viz.:

Petitioner Dizon in this case has actually substantiated with sufficient evidence her claim that
her signature appearing in the said Deed of Absolute Sale was actually forged considering her
absence in the country during the month of February 2000 and thereafter, during the execution
of the Deed of Absolute Sale.

The CA held that since a notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity, and only
clear, strong, and convincing evidence can rebut such presumption, the evidence presented by
petitioner Dizon was not enough to refute the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale dated February
24, 2000, which stated that petitioner Dizon entered into a contract of sale over the subject
property with respondent Matti, Jr. The CA added that allegations of forgery should not be
presumed and that a claim of forgery cannot be accepted where no examination of signatures
was conducted by an expert witness.

Issue: Whether the CA was correct in upholding the sale covering the subject property
purportedly entered into by petitioner Dizon and respondent Matti, Jr.

Held: No. The RTC, after a painstaking and thorough examination of the evidence
presented by both parties, found that "petitioner Dizon has sufficiently proven that she
was not here in the Philippines for the whole month of February 2000. Such being the
case, this Court is of the firm belief and resolve that petitioner Dizon could not have
signed the said Deed of Absolute Sale which purportedly transferred or conveyed the
subject property.
According to Rule 132, Section 23 of the Rules of Court, documents consisting of entries
in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima
facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

Hence the official travel record issued by the Bureau of Immigration is prima
facie evidence of the fact that petitioner Dizon was abroad in February 2000, the time
she supposedly personally transacted with respondent Matti, Jr. in the Philippines.

This was further corroborated by the passport of petitioner Dizon, a public document,
which bears official stamps made by the Bureau of Immigration proving her absence
from the Philippines during the time alleged by respondent Matti, Jr. that she was in the
Philippines.